What do you do during the Pledge of Allegiance?

rated by 0 users

This post has
41
Replies |
7
Followers

I'm actually about to go to some meeting, and they always say the pledge and all of that crap. Now that I'm a full-blown AnCap, every time somebody sings the National Anthem or makes us all stand up for that or the stupid pledge, I always wonder if I should show everyone that I have principles and remain seated, or I should just go with the show.

Jesse Ventura said he turns around and makes a fist. What do you guys do?

I live in Redneckersonville, where I'm surrounded by a lot of old, tobacco-chewing Vietnam vets. While I respect them for getting through that hell hole that the government told them to go through, a lot of them are super-nationalistic because of it, I guess because they want to believe it meant something.

So when I do that kind of stuff in a public place, I think a lot of them would go for their M1 Garand.

Who cares? Just go with the flow. You know what you believe inside and that's all that really matters. More valuable than any sort of protest is to have a conversation with someone and plant the seeds of doubt re. statism in their mind. Do we really need to be in Afghanistan and threatening Iran? I wonder how much of that deficit could be closed if we just brought back our troops from the 700 overseas military installations we have in 170 countries?

Remember, it's all just a sham. It deserve mockery, not protest. Let it run off you like water off a duck's back. The moment you take it seriously enough to protest it is the moment you fall back into the statist script of the Forces of Good versus the Forces of Evil.

Since the default is to go along with it, choosing not to is a form of communication. However, as with just going up to people and telling them you're an "anarchist," this is not going to be a successful communication. They're more likely to think you intend to signal you're a communist, a terrorist, or that "you hate America's freedoms." If seen as a communication, it can only be a terribly obtuse one. In fact, until everyone in the room knows AND understands your position, there is no possible way they can interpret such a gesture of defiance as you intend it.

Anyone else get irked by people who refuse to do the salute, but are hardcore statists?

I noticed once that several friends hadn't stood up for the pledge. They are progressive democrats so I knew they weren't doing it out of a sudden conversion to anarchism. When I confronted them about it they said it was because it felt liks a religious ceremony and they didn't think we should worship the state. Which should have made me happy I suppose, but they were wearing these shirts with Obama's face on them. So it bugs me since I don't know if they don't get that they still worship the state, or if they were just trolling.

Personally I advise standing, but not reciting the pledge or saying anything. Better to avoid confrontation.

I'm actually about to go to some meeting, and they always say the pledge and all of that crap. Now that I'm a full-blown AnCap, every time somebody sings the National Anthem or makes us all stand up for that or the stupid pledge, I always wonder if I should show everyone that I have principles and remain seated, or I should just go with the show.

Is that supposed to change my mind? Besides, who's to say that you and I must mean the same things by the words "fear" and "insult"?

No, I just think you're conflating fear and insult. I don't think the point is to establish an agreement between you and I, but to understand the violent person on their own terms. If they attack someone without feeling any sense of fear I think calling them a coward using violence as a crutch for their insecure beliefs is a bit unfair.

That implies that there are certain definitions of the words "fear" and "insult" that I must follow. Do I need to repeat myself?

No it doesn't. You can think whatever you want about fear and insult. I think there are some substantively useful distinctions that can be made between them that alters our understanding of certain emotions. You may very well feel they are one and the same.

What exactly are you asking need be repeated?

And why do you think that's the point, exactly?

When I characterize people I like to think I am giving their pov a fair hearing. I think this allows me to have a better grasp of the world around me. As well as understand my own perspective and situate it in relation to those around me.

I really couldn't care less whether you or anyone else thinks that's "a bit unfair". Do you understand?

Ok. I don't expect you to. It isn't about you caring what me or anyone else thinks.

How doesn't it? It seems clear to me that, by saying you think I'm conflating two things, I'm therefore thinking about them incorrectly, and that you at least want me (if not consider me obligated) to correct my thinking about them. If that's not what you meant, then please, by all means, clarify for me what you did mean, because I'm otherwise at a loss to understand it.

National Acrobat:

You can think whatever you want about fear and insult. I think there are some substantively useful distinctions that can be made between them that alters our understanding of certain emotions. You may very well feel they are one and the same.

You seem to be ignoring the distinction between (conflating?) a label for a thing and the thing itself. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. My point is that I may very well not be referring to the same things as you are with the labels "fear" and "insult".

National Acrobat:

When I characterize people I like to think I am giving their pov a fair hearing. I think this allows me to have a better grasp of the world around me. As well as understand my own perspective and situate it in relation to those around me.

As I see it, giving a person's point of view a fair hearing and considering it equally valid w.r.t. my own are entirely different things.

National Acrobat:

Ok. I don't expect you to. It isn't about you caring what me or anyone else thinks.

Are you sure about that? Because I don't really believe you.

National Acrobat:

Nothing I guess.

Are you sure?

National Acrobat:

I have to ask though, why such a passive aggressive tone?

You didn't "have to" ask - you chose to ask. But to answer your question, it's because I think you deserve it.

How doesn't it? It seems clear to me that, by saying you think I'm conflating two things, I'm therefore thinking about them incorrectly, and that you at least want me (if not consider me obligated) to correct my thinking about them. If that's not what you meant, then please, by all means, clarify for me what you did mean, because I'm otherwise at a loss to understand it.

Well, I think there are better ways to think about it. Yes. I wouldn't say correct or incorrect. But when you jump to me wanting you to change (or even feel you're obligated, far from it) you go off the rails. I don't care what you do.

You seem to be ignoring the distinction between (conflating?) a label for a thing and the thing itself. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. My point is that I may very well not be referring to the same things as you are with the labels "fear" and "insult".

It seems you're working from a passive theory of knowledge, that there are things out in the world that humans can perceive as is and then name. I don't think thats the case and that the categories we construct have a constitutive effect on our perceptions. I don't think that fear and insult just exist and then we name these independently existing things. I believe we create categories for interpreting particular sensations that in part constitutes those sensations. It's possible that fear and insult can be interpreted as the same thing by someone. I think this results in a less rich understanding of their and others experiences, but they can do it. It's also possible that they completely lack any understanding of these concepts in any way relatable to my own understanding if them.

I don't think I'm ignoring that distinction at all.

As I see it, giving a person's point of view a fair hearing and considering it equally valid w.r.t. my own are entirely different things.

I would agree those seem to be very different things.

Are you sure about that? Because I don't really believe you.

I hate to bruise your ego, but it's not. By all means, do as you as please.

Are you sure?

No. It was a guess.

You didn't "have to" ask - you chose to ask. But to answer your question, it's because I think you deserve it.

Well, I think there are better ways to think about it. Yes. I wouldn't say correct or incorrect. But when you jump to me wanting you to change (or even feel you're obligated, far from it) you go off the rails [sic]. I don't care what you do.

Then please, by all means, explain to me why you bothered to tell me that you think I'm necessarily conflating fear and insult in my characterization of those who would resort to violence in the face of those who simply disagree with them about the Pledge of Allegiance (and probably a host of other things too). I can't see any other reason for you to tell me that unless you expected it to have a certain effect on me.

National Acrobat:

It seems you're working from a passive theory of knowledge, that there are things out in the world that humans can perceive as is and then name. I don't think thats the case and that the categories we construct have a constitutive effect on our perceptions. I don't think that fear and insult just exist and then we name these independently existing things. I believe we create categories for interpreting particular sensations that in part constitutes those sensations. It's possible that fear and insult can be interpreted as the same thing by someone. I think this results in a less rich understanding of their and others experiences, but they can do it. It's also possible that they completely lack any understanding of these concepts in any way relatable to my own understanding if them.

I don't think I'm ignoring that distinction at all.

As I see it, you're either missing my point or you're deliberately trying to obfuscate it so as to render it unintelligible to others. I also think you're inferring too much when you say that it seems I'm working from what you call a "passive theory of knowledge", etc. Even assuming arguendo (at least) that the categories we construct have constitutive effects on our perceptions, that in no way means we must all label those categories and perceptions the same way. It also doesn't mean that we must all construct the same categories or that we must all be perceptively affected by each of them in the same way(s). You seem to contradict this by continuing to not distinguish between the words (i.e. labels) "fear" and "insult" and whatever concepts/categories/perceptions/whatever you're using them to refer to. This is especially blatant when you say that "it's possible that fear and insult can be interpreted as the same thing by someone" - here you seem to be implying that they necessarily are separate concepts and that therefore to interpret them as the same thing is to interpret them incorrectly. I challenge you to provide reasoning and/or evidence for this.

National Acrobat:

I would agree those seem to be very different things.

Thank you. I'll go on to say that I think I've given the opposing viewpoint in this context a fair hearing, and I've furthermore found it to be next to worthless.

National Acrobat:

I hate to bruise your ego, but it's not. By all means, do as you as please.

That implies that you saying that will necessarily bruise my ego. Guess what? It doesn't, because I don't feel like my ego's been bruised. Now what?

In any case, if you really don't think it's about me caring what you or anyone else thinks, then just what was your point in saying that you think it's "a bit unfair" to call them cowards using violence as a crutch for their insecure beliefs?

National Acrobat:

No. It was just a guess.

Uh-huh.

National Acrobat:

Why do I deserve it?

Because it's clear to me that you're trying to berate me (however subtly) for my opinion here, and I'm trying to ram home the point that such berating is a waste of time, because I simply won't let you push me around like that.

Then please, by all means, explain to me why you bothered to tell me that you think I'm necessarily conflating fear and insult in my characterization of those who would resort to violence in the face of those who simply disagree with them about the Pledge of Allegiance (and probably a host of other things too). I can't see any other reason for you to tell me that unless you expected it to have a certain effect on me.

I didn't say necessarily, I said might. Note the difference.

As I see it, you're either missing my point or you're deliberately trying to obfuscate it so as to render it unintelligible to others. I also think you're inferring too much when you say that it seems I'm working from what you call a "passive theory of knowledge", etc. Even assuming arguendo (at least) that the categories we construct have constitutive effects on our perceptions, that in no way means we must all label those categories and perceptions the same way. It also doesn't mean that we must all construct the same categories or that we must all be perceptively affected by each of them in the same way(s). You seem to contradict this by continuing to not distinguish between the words (i.e. labels) "fear" and "insult" and whatever concepts/categories/perceptions/whatever you're using them to refer to. This is especially blatant when you say that "it's possible that fear and insult can be interpreted as the same thing by someone" - here you seem to be implying that they necessarily are separate concepts and that therefore to interpret them as the same thing is to interpret them incorrectly. I challenge you to provide reasoning and/or evidence for this.

I think it would be beneficial to review what I said. First I didn't say that an interpretation different from my own was incorrect, as you say. I said,

"I think this results in a less rich understanding of their and others experiences, but they can do it."

I may be wrong in that assessment but it is what I think nonetheless.

Second, I do distinguish between the words themselves and their meanings, accounting for different interpretations than my own. I said right after the above sentence,

"It's also possible that they completely lack any understanding of these concepts in any way relatable to my own understanding if them."

In other words, we have completely incommensurable understandings.

That implies that you saying that will necessarily bruise my ego. Guess what? It doesn't, because I don't feel like my ego's been bruised. Now what?

In any case, if you really don't think it's about me caring what you or anyone else thinks, then just what was your point in saying that you think it's "a bit unfair" to call them cowards using violence as a crutch for their insecure beliefs?

Good, I didn't want to bruise your ego.

I said that because I think (i.e. it is my opinion) it's unfair to impose upon the intentions of another person a narrative that comports with my ideological orientation. I think this makes it impossible to understand someone on their own terms and therefore impossible to understand them at all.

Uh-huh.

What does that mean?

Because it's clear to me that you're trying to berate me (however subtly) for my opinion here, and I'm trying to ram home the point that such berating is a waste of time, because I simply won't let you push me around like that.

Autolykos, I don't what happened in real life or online, or whatever it is that has made you this way, but you're incredibly sensitive to the point of paranoia about the things that other people say to you.

You have repeatedly read intention into my posts that simply are not there. You consistently taken a passive aggressive tone with me. You have selectively read my posts to fit your narrative. You have even gone back and re-imagined why is that I have said to fit your preconceived notions about me.

I'm going to give you the story of my involvement in this thread and you can believe it or not, but this is what happened. I clicked on the thread, read the OP and saw your response accusing violent vets of being yellow bellied cowards. This is different from my own interpretation, so I asked you about it. Not to berate you, but to try and understand where you're coming from.

True, you didn't actually say "necessarily", and you did say "might", but I've taken that as just a rhetorical device - a way to "soften the blow" and make yourself appear more "reasonable".

National Acrobat:

I think it would be beneficial to review what I said.

I did already, thanks.

National Acrobat:

First I didn't say that an interpretation different from my own was incorrect, as you say. I said,

"I think this results in a less rich understanding of their and others experiences, but they can do it."

I may be wrong in that assessment but it is what I think nonetheless.

It makes no sense to me for you to talk about interpretations of concepts when you've already stated that the concepts are the interpretations. That's the point I was trying to get across in my last post.

National Acrobat:

Second, I do distinguish between the words themselves and their meanings, accounting for different interpretations than my own. I said right after the above sentence,

"It's also possible that they completely lack any understanding of these concepts in any way relatable to my own understanding if them."

In other words, we have completely incommensurable understandings.

Again, if the concepts are the understandings, then different understandings equals different concepts, no?

At this point, I think it would be beneficial for you to review what I said beforehand.

National Acrobat:

Good, I didn't want to bruise your ego.

If you say so.

National Acrobat:

I said that because I think (i.e. it is my opinion) it's unfair to impose upon the intentions of another person a narrative that comports with [your] ideological orientation. I think this makes it impossible to understand someone on their own terms and therefore impossible to understand them at all.

Maybe I don't want to understand them on their own terms. Maybe I don't want to understand them at all. Maybe I do understand them, but I have nothing but contempt for them regardless.

If you really just wanted to state your opinion, with no expectation whatsoever of eliciting a change of opinion from me as a result, then all I have to say is: Gee, that's nice. Thanks for sharing.

National Acrobat:

What does that mean?

What do you think it means?

National Acrobat:

Autolykos, I don't what happened in real life or online, or whatever it is that has made you this way, but you're incredibly sensitive to the point of paranoia about the things that other people say to you.

Nice try. Tell that to someone who cares. This is me not being embarrassed, insulted, or otherwise personally affected by your remarks here.

National Acrobat:

You have repeatedly read intention into my posts that simply are not there.

Just because you say so doesn't make it true. You see, I don't really trust you, to be honest.

National Acrobat:

You consistently taken a passive aggressive tone with me.

That's right. I won't deny this. And?

National Acrobat:

You have selectively read my posts to fit your narrative. You have even gone back and re-imagined why is that I have said to fit your preconceived notions about me.

So you say. Do you have anything to back up those accusations with?

National Acrobat:

I'm going to give you the story of my involvement in this thread and you can believe it or not, but this is what happened. I clicked on the thread, read the OP and saw your response accusing violent vets of being yellow bellied cowards. This is different from my own interpretation, so I asked you about it. Not to berate you, but to try and understand where you're coming from.

Were that your actual intention, then you wouldn't have countered my explanation at all, now would you? No, I don't believe you would. Maybe you would've asked for clarification if you were still confused, but you wouldn't have said that I "might be conflating fear and insult". I maintain that you said that to suggest - at least to "the audience", if not also to me personally - that my viewpoint is actually wrong. You've been insinuating since then that I'm obligated to not think the way I do because the violent veterans themselves allegedly don't see things that way. I categorically refuse that purported obligation. As I see it, those people so readily resort to aggressive (IMO) violence precisely because of how threatened they feel. Furthermore, for them to feel so threatened in the face of such non-violent public disagreement is what makes them so cowardly IMHO.

True, you didn't actually say "necessarily", and you did say "might", but I've taken that as just a rhetorical device - a way to "soften the blow" and make yourself appear more "reasonable".

National Acrobat:

I think it would be beneficial to review what I said.

I did already, thanks.

National Acrobat:

First I didn't say that an interpretation different from my own was incorrect, as you say. I said,

"I think this results in a less rich understanding of their and others experiences, but they can do it."

I may be wrong in that assessment but it is what I think nonetheless.

It makes no sense to me for you to talk about interpretations of concepts when you've already stated that the concepts are the interpretations. That's the point I was trying to get across in my last post.

National Acrobat:

Second, I do distinguish between the words themselves and their meanings, accounting for different interpretations than my own. I said right after the above sentence,

"It's also possible that they completely lack any understanding of these concepts in any way relatable to my own understanding if them."

In other words, we have completely incommensurable understandings.

Again, if the concepts are the understandings, then different understandings equals different concepts, no?

At this point, I think it would be beneficial for you to review what I said beforehand.

National Acrobat:

Good, I didn't want to bruise your ego.

If you say so.

National Acrobat:

I said that because I think (i.e. it is my opinion) it's unfair to impose upon the intentions of another person a narrative that comports with [your] ideological orientation. I think this makes it impossible to understand someone on their own terms and therefore impossible to understand them at all.

Maybe I don't want to understand them on their own terms. Maybe I don't want to understand them at all. Maybe I do understand them, but I have nothing but contempt for them regardless.

If you really just wanted to state your opinion, with no expectation whatsoever of eliciting a change of opinion from me as a result, then all I have to say is: Gee, that's nice. Thanks for sharing.

National Acrobat:

What does that mean?

What do you think it means?

National Acrobat:

Autolykos, I don't what happened in real life or online, or whatever it is that has made you this way, but you're incredibly sensitive to the point of paranoia about the things that other people say to you.

Nice try. Tell that to someone who cares. This is me not being embarrassed, insulted, or otherwise personally affected by your remarks here.

National Acrobat:

You have repeatedly read intention into my posts that simply are not there.

Just because you say so doesn't make it true. You see, I don't really trust you, to be honest.

National Acrobat:

You consistently taken a passive aggressive tone with me.

That's right. I won't deny this. And?

National Acrobat:

You have selectively read my posts to fit your narrative. You have even gone back and re-imagined why is that I have said to fit your preconceived notions about me.

So you say. Do you have anything to back up those accusations with?

National Acrobat:

I'm going to give you the story of my involvement in this thread and you can believe it or not, but this is what happened. I clicked on the thread, read the OP and saw your response accusing violent vets of being yellow bellied cowards. This is different from my own interpretation, so I asked you about it. Not to berate you, but to try and understand where you're coming from.

Were that your actual intention, then you wouldn't have countered my explanation at all, now would you? No, I don't believe you would. Maybe you would've asked for clarification if you were still confused, but you wouldn't have said that I "might be conflating fear and insult". I maintain that you said that to suggest - at least to "the audience", if not also to me personally - that my viewpoint is actually wrong. You've been insinuating since then that I'm obligated to not think the way I do because the violent veterans themselves allegedly don't see things that way. I categorically refuse that purported obligation. As I see it, those people so readily resort to aggressive (IMO) violence precisely because of how threatened they feel. Furthermore, for them to feel so threatened in the face of such non-violent public disagreement is what makes them so cowardly IMHO.

Autolykos, you seem like a deeply troubled individual. You refuse to believe the things I say and instead, without any reason or shred of evidence and substance, superimpose your own thoughts on to me. It appears nothing I say will disabuse you of this disturbing pattern of behavior.

On the contrary, I think I have sufficient reason, evidence, and substance to make the accusations that I've made. I notice that in this latest response of yours, you don't even bother to try refuting anything that I said. Apparently this parting shot of yours is a last-ditch attempt to "save face". In any event, I accept your implicit concession.

As far as I can see, all Autolykos was saying is that for someone to be so threatened by a gesture as small as a facepalm that they would think it necessary to respond with extreme physical violence demonstrates a cowardice within themselves.

Now even if we go by dictionary meanings:

Cowardice: Lack of courage

Courage: The quality of a confident character not to be afraid or intimidated easily but without being incautious or inconsiderate.

Wouldn't you agree, National Acrobat, that someone who would shoot another for facepalming during the Pledge of Allegiance shows themselves threatened by something so insignificant, i.e. easily intimidated?

As far as I can see, all Autolykos was saying is that for someone to be so threatened by a gesture as small as a facepalm that they would think it necessary to respond with extreme physical violence demonstrates a cowardice within themselves.

Now even if we go by dictionary meanings:

Cowardice: Lack of courage

Courage: The quality of a confident character not to be afraid or intimidated easily but without being incautious or inconsiderate.

Wouldn't you agree, National Acrobat, that someone who would shoot another for facepalming during the Pledge of Allegiance shows themselves threatened by something so insignificant, i.e. easily intimidated?

I understand that's what he was saying. I think a reaction like that comes from being insulted as opposed to being afraid. You're attacking an integral aspect of that person's identity and they have taken offense. And that aspect of their identity, their nationalism, isn't something that's really in danger. Nationalism in the US, especially in the form of the Pledge and national anthem, is well and alive. Given that, it seems to me that a vet wouldn't be experiencing fear as much as disgust and insult.

To say that someone is a coward because they react with violence to what they understand as an insult, seems to unfairly paint that person with a particular brush for the purpose of discrediting them because they disagree with you as opposed to really giving a faithful account of that person's actions as they understand them.